- Home
- Commentaries and Reports
- Jefferson's "Wall of Separation"
Jefferson's "Wall of Separation"
- By David W. Kirkpatrick Columnist EdNews.org
- Published 03/16/2007
- Commentaries and Reports
-
Rating:
David W. Kirkpatrick Columnist EdNews.org
View all articles by David W. Kirkpatrick Columnist EdNews.orgJefferson's "Wall of Separation"
David W. Kirkpatrick
Columnist EdNews.org
Senior Education Fellow
U.S. Freedom Foundation
The following is adapted from remarks by American University Professor Daniel L. Dreisbach, author of Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State is reprinted by permission from Imprimis, the national speech digest of Hillsdale College, www.hillsdale.edu. Professor Dreisbach's October 2006 text may be found at the Hillsdale site.
On January 1, 1802 President Thomas Jefferson, wrote a letter responding to one from the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. At that time the Congregationalist church was the established church in Connecticut. The New England Baptists were concerned about their right of conscience as an inalienable right–not as a favor subject to withdrawal by the state. It was in his letter that Jefferson referred to "a wall of separation between Church and State."
There was a consensus among the Founding Fathers that religion was indispensable to a system of republican self-government. Jefferson's metaphor conformed to this consensus and was meant to serve the free exercise of religion. Thus use of it to restrict religious exercise, that is, to disallow a citizens' religious expression in the public square conflicts with the very principle he hoped to advance. In fact, his letter concluded with a prayer, reciprocating his Baptists correspondents' ‘kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man." Ironically, some strict separationists today contend that such solemn words themselves violate a constitutional "wall of separation."
The Baptists themselves, who agitated for disestablishment but not for separation, were apparently discomfited by the figurative phrase and, perhaps, even sought to suppress the president's letter. They, like many Americans feared that the erection of such a wall would separate religious influences from public life and policy.
The rhetoric of separation of church and state became fashionable in the 1830s and 1840s had again in the last quarter of the 19th century during two substantial waves of Catholic immigration. The rhetoric of separation was used by nativist elements, such as the Know-Nothings and later the Ku Klux Klan, to marginalize Catholics and to deny them, often through violence, entrance into the mainstream of public life.
By the end of the century, an allegiance to the so-called "American principle" of separation of church and state had been woven into the membership oaths of the Ku Klu Klan. Today we typically think of the Klan strictly in terms of their views on race, and forget that their hatred of Catholics was equally odious.
Jefferson's wording entered the lexicon of American law in the U.S. Supreme court's 1878 ruling in Reynolds v. United States, although most scholars agree that the wall metaphor played no role in the Court's reasoning. In the mid-20th centiury the rhetoric of separation was revived and ultimately constitutionalized by anti-Catholic elites, such as Justice Hugo L. Black, and fellow travelers in the ACLU and Protestants and Other Americans United for the Separation o f Church and State, who feared the influence and wealth of the Catholic "Church and perceived parochial education as a threat to public schools and democratic values. The chief architect of the modern "wall" was Justice Black whose affinity for church-state separation and the metaphor was rooted in virulent anti-Catholicism.
It wasn't until Everson v. Board of Education (1947) that the Court "rediscovered" the metaphor. Citing no source or authority other than Reynolds, Justice Black, writing for the majority, invoked the Danbury letter's "wall of separation" passage in support of his strict separationist interpretation of the First Amendment prohibition in laws "respecting an establishment of religion."
Thus the chief architect of the modern "wall" was Justice Black, whose affinity for church-state separation and the metaphor was rooted in virulent anti-Catholicism. Although Black distanced himself from his earlier membership in the Alabama Ku Klux Klan his distaste for Catholicism did not diminish. He believed that separation of church and state was an American ideal of freedom from oppressive ecclesiastical authority, especially that of the Roman Catholic Church.
Jefferson's figurative language has not produced the practical solutions to real world controversies that its apparent clarity and directness led its proponents to expect. Indeed, this wall has done what walls frequently do–it has obstructed the view, obfuscating our understanding of constitutional principles governing church-state relationships.
"Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Northwest Ordinance; Article 3, July 13, 1787.
Published March 17, 2007
Columnist EdNews.org
Senior Education Fellow
U.S. Freedom Foundation
The following is adapted from remarks by American University Professor Daniel L. Dreisbach, author of Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State is reprinted by permission from Imprimis, the national speech digest of Hillsdale College, www.hillsdale.edu. Professor Dreisbach's October 2006 text may be found at the Hillsdale site.
On January 1, 1802 President Thomas Jefferson, wrote a letter responding to one from the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. At that time the Congregationalist church was the established church in Connecticut. The New England Baptists were concerned about their right of conscience as an inalienable right–not as a favor subject to withdrawal by the state. It was in his letter that Jefferson referred to "a wall of separation between Church and State."
There was a consensus among the Founding Fathers that religion was indispensable to a system of republican self-government. Jefferson's metaphor conformed to this consensus and was meant to serve the free exercise of religion. Thus use of it to restrict religious exercise, that is, to disallow a citizens' religious expression in the public square conflicts with the very principle he hoped to advance. In fact, his letter concluded with a prayer, reciprocating his Baptists correspondents' ‘kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man." Ironically, some strict separationists today contend that such solemn words themselves violate a constitutional "wall of separation."
The Baptists themselves, who agitated for disestablishment but not for separation, were apparently discomfited by the figurative phrase and, perhaps, even sought to suppress the president's letter. They, like many Americans feared that the erection of such a wall would separate religious influences from public life and policy.
The rhetoric of separation of church and state became fashionable in the 1830s and 1840s had again in the last quarter of the 19th century during two substantial waves of Catholic immigration. The rhetoric of separation was used by nativist elements, such as the Know-Nothings and later the Ku Klux Klan, to marginalize Catholics and to deny them, often through violence, entrance into the mainstream of public life.
Jefferson's wording entered the lexicon of American law in the U.S. Supreme court's 1878 ruling in Reynolds v. United States, although most scholars agree that the wall metaphor played no role in the Court's reasoning. In the mid-20th centiury the rhetoric of separation was revived and ultimately constitutionalized by anti-Catholic elites, such as Justice Hugo L. Black, and fellow travelers in the ACLU and Protestants and Other Americans United for the Separation o f Church and State, who feared the influence and wealth of the Catholic "Church and perceived parochial education as a threat to public schools and democratic values. The chief architect of the modern "wall" was Justice Black whose affinity for church-state separation and the metaphor was rooted in virulent anti-Catholicism.
It wasn't until Everson v. Board of Education (1947) that the Court "rediscovered" the metaphor. Citing no source or authority other than Reynolds, Justice Black, writing for the majority, invoked the Danbury letter's "wall of separation" passage in support of his strict separationist interpretation of the First Amendment prohibition in laws "respecting an establishment of religion."
Thus the chief architect of the modern "wall" was Justice Black, whose affinity for church-state separation and the metaphor was rooted in virulent anti-Catholicism. Although Black distanced himself from his earlier membership in the Alabama Ku Klux Klan his distaste for Catholicism did not diminish. He believed that separation of church and state was an American ideal of freedom from oppressive ecclesiastical authority, especially that of the Roman Catholic Church.
Jefferson's figurative language has not produced the practical solutions to real world controversies that its apparent clarity and directness led its proponents to expect. Indeed, this wall has done what walls frequently do–it has obstructed the view, obfuscating our understanding of constitutional principles governing church-state relationships.
"Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Northwest Ordinance; Article 3, July 13, 1787.
Published March 17, 2007
